Trade Dollar Dip results *see updated pic"

[gmarguli]

So your business model relies upon capitalizing upon the inherent faults of "the average collector". Nice!

 

No, my business model relies on providing the buyer with what they want. Telling them what they should want based on my personal likes and dislikes doesn't seem like a wise business strategy to me. My business is booming so I must be doing something right.

 

 

 

Obviously your motivations rely solely in monetary exploits gained from your actions and not in the preservation, state, or future of the items which you purvey or health of the business/industry in which you operate. (Did the thought ever occur that you could "TEACH" the consumer about the difference and that it might, just might, pay off in the long run - or do you actually prefer your customers to be uninformed???)

 

I guess I'm not a good teacher. Just look at how I haven't been able to get thru to you.

 

 

As for your remaining question - You state that blast white will be chosen over light original skin by collectors and then, amazingly, once you've just openly admitting that you, in fact, can recognize/identify/distinguish "original skin" for this purpose, question whether it (original skin) exists, has meaning, or can be discerned... You sir have answered your own question and yet again provided self-conflicting, logically misconstrued discourse...

 

No, I can distinguish between coins that have skin and those that don't. I cannot tell the difference between original skin and skin that formed after many years after a dip.

[relicsncoins]

So when a painting is conserved and dirt, oxidation and smoke residue is removed. In order to undo that you would add dirt, oxidation and smoke residue?

 

hmmmm? sounds interesting.

[SWNGC]

Ok, If we must...

 

No, my business model relies on providing the buyer with what they want. Telling them what they should want based on my personal likes and dislikes doesn't seem like a wise business strategy to me. My business is booming so I must be doing something right.

 

Anyone who understands the basic concepts related to the strategic selling process, consumer decision making process, product differentiation, value added practices, and/or customer service realizes that one of the KEY ways to differentiate yourself from competition, build a solid brand/reputation, increase customer satisfaction and drive profits is to INFORM THE BUYER. Providing them with details with respect to altered, damaged, or even over dipped coins is not injecting personal preferences into the equation (contrary to your ill-construed statement), but rather assisting them in ensuring that they have the essential knowledge required to make informed decisions with respect to their investments. Provided that the goods that you offer are not of questionable quality, this will serve to add value to your clients and dissuade them from your competition (the guy who didn't tell them). Observing these practices builds a sustainable long term revenue stream, i.e. wealth/value as opposed to attempting to opportunistically capitalize on a vulnerable component within the industry.

 

That said, now we get to address another of your poorly construed deductions...

 

My business is booming so I must be doing something right.

 

Without regard for your definition of booming, would you also contend that since the business of coin doctors, alterers, and forgers is booming that they are "doing something right"?

 

Were Madoff and Stanford "doing something right" when their unsustainable businesses were "booming"?

 

To that point, will you please learn to make coherent logical assertions prior to making another post?

 

I guess I'm not a good teacher. Just look at how I haven't been able to get thru to you.

 

Obviously you are not "yet "a good "teacher". While I do not doubt that you have specialized knowledge in areas of numismatics that could be of considerable perceived value to others, the method in which you choose to share/convey it to the world is adulterated/biased by your conflicting views with respect to the almighty dollar and your "blinker's on" view that your current way is the "only" way that you can achieve this. I challenge you to broaden your horizons with respect to this notion and enlighten the experiences of yourself and your patrons.

 

No, I can distinguish between coins that have skin and those that don't. I cannot tell the difference between original skin and skin that formed after many years after a dip.

 

Ok, so you can tell the difference. I would contest the generalized second statement above in its current form, but submit that there are circumstances where it can become difficult to detect the difference between an old "dip" and an original skin, but that there is a obviously a difference and that as such, dip should be used sparingly.

[gmarguli]

Ok, If we must...

 

No, my business model relies on providing the buyer with what they want. Telling them what they should want based on my personal likes and dislikes doesn't seem like a wise business strategy to me. My business is booming so I must be doing something right.

 

Anyone who understands the basic concepts related to the strategic selling process, consumer decision making process, product differentiation, value added practices, and/or customer service realizes that one of the KEY ways to differentiate yourself from competition, build a solid brand/reputation, increase customer satisfaction and drive profits is to INFORM THE BUYER. Providing them with details with respect to altered, damaged, or even over dipped coins is not injecting personal preferences into the equation (contrary to your ill-construed statement), but rather assisting them in ensuring that they have the essential knowledge required to make informed decisions with respect to their investments. Provided that the goods that you offer are not of questionable quality, this will serve to add value to your clients and dissuade them from your competition (the guy who didn't tell them). Observing these practices builds a sustainable long term revenue stream, i.e. wealth/value as opposed to attempting to opportunistically capitalize on a vulnerable component within the industry.

 

I'm pretty sure I understand the selling process. Not only do I have my own successful coin business, but I also do the marketing for county, city, & states insurance products, as well as have a Masters Degree in Marketing.

 

Perhaps this is why I am not a good teacher, but rather a doer. I actually understand concepts and can put the necessary ones into practice while not dredging up unnecessary concepts.

 

NO REPLY NECESSARY. You're one step from the Ignore feature.

[shirohniichan]

Anyone who understands the basic concepts related to the strategic selling process, consumer decision making process, product differentiation, value added practices, and/or customer service realizes that one of the KEY ways to differentiate yourself from competition, build a solid brand/reputation, increase customer satisfaction and drive profits is to INFORM THE BUYER. Providing them with details with respect to altered, damaged, or even over dipped coins is not injecting personal preferences into the equation (contrary to your ill-construed statement), but rather assisting them in ensuring that they have the essential knowledge required to make informed decisions with respect to their investments. Provided that the goods that you offer are not of questionable quality, this will serve to add value to your clients and dissuade them from your competition (the guy who didn't tell them). Observing these practices builds a sustainable long term revenue stream, i.e. wealth/value as opposed to attempting to opportunistically capitalize on a vulnerable component within the industry.

 

If people acted rationally all the time, this would be true. In my experience, people who want a certain kind of item will buy from whoever sells it to them. You can decline to sell rainbow toned Morgans they are looking for and explain the vast majority will most likely be AT unless they study hard under experts before buying, and they will thank you and go down a few tables to the guy selling the AT Morgans they are looking for. You can tell customers not to do a lot of things you think unwise and spend a lot of time trying to teach them. The majority won't listen.

 

This DOES NOT MEAN that dealers should join in on the scams. However, it does mean that you can sell, for example, blast-white 19th century coins if that's what your customers want. If they say they are only looking for "original" blast-white old coins, the dealer should let them know there is no such thing (except for RARE occasions-- and those who claim to sell only "original" blast-white coins are the least likely to have them). Coins are dipped over the years, We may not like it, but it happens.

 

If it were true that all one had to do was inform buyers about the reality of the coin market, coin doctors would have gone out of business long ago.

[coinman23885-migration]

Would LOVE to see one of the big EBAY coin doctors just get charged under this one...

 

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 25, 471

 

Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 

BUT WOULD GLADLY SETTLE FOR:

 

"Anyone who manufactures a counterfeit U.S. coin in any denomination above five cents is subject to the same penalties as all other counterfeiters. Anyone who alters a genuine coin to increase its numismatic value is in violation of Title 18, Section 331 of the United States Code, which is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000, or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both"

 

I think your arguments under 18 U.S.C. §471 are weak in that "counterfeits" have traditionally referred to coins that are not genuine in terms of manufacture. An altered coin that has been artificially toned isn't a "counterfeit" per se. Traditional counterfeiting laws have accepted this position. Even if you were able to convince a judge that that was an accepted terminology for alterations, the defendant would still prevail. If there is any ambiguity in a criminal statute, it is a widely accepted rule of statutory interpretation (the Rule of Lenity) that the statute is to be construed in the favor of the defendant.

 

Your arguments are much stronger under 18 U.S.C. §331; however, you have another problem. Statutes such as §331 are not strict liability crimes; that is, they require the common law element of mens rea. In other words, they are specific intent crimes. In order to successfully prosecute someone under this statute, you must prove that they accomplished the act and that they knowingly sold it with the intent to defraud the buyer. Proving intent is very difficult and absent a pattern that would establish this doctor as such, it would be difficult to prosecute. If the original poster has this conclusive evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt] and the seller refused to refund his money, then he should contact his federal district attorney about pursuing federal criminal charges. Even if the coin doctor wasn't convicted, the odds are that he or she would be forced to pay out thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. I know that this isn't much comfort for a buyer that is "out of luck", but it is comforting in general to see some justice ultimately result from a bad situation.

 

If anyone tries this, let me know how this works. I wonder if the same concept would work with artificial slabbers who clean/dip their coins prior to "slabbing" and then sell them on eBay to unwary buyers.

[SWNGC]

If people acted rationally all the time, this would be true. In my experience, people who want a certain kind of item will buy from whoever sells it to them. You can decline to sell rainbow toned Morgans they are looking for and explain the vast majority will most likely be AT unless they study hard under experts before buying, and they will thank you and go down a few tables to the guy selling the AT Morgans they are looking for. You can tell customers not to do a lot of things you think unwise and spend a lot of time trying to teach them. The majority won't listen.

 

This DOES NOT MEAN that dealers should join in on the scams. However, it does mean that you can sell, for example, blast-white 19th century coins if that's what your customers want. If they say they are only looking for "original" blast-white old coins, the dealer should let them know there is no such thing (except for RARE occasions-- and those who claim to sell only "original" blast-white coins are the least likely to have them). Coins are dipped over the years, We may not like it, but it happens.

 

If it were true that all one had to do was inform buyers about the reality of the coin market, coin doctors would have gone out of business long ago.

 

Spot on!

 

There are consequences to not participating in or limiting participation in certain areas of a business and to drawing a line in what you will and will not do (such as knowingly and willfully purveying AT or problem coins as anything but what they are)!

 

 

Offer original coins,

Offer Blast-White coins,

Offer naturally toned coins,

Offer problem coins,

 

Offer the item that the consumer wants (obviously impart as little damage to the item as possible in the process), Just disclose what they are as what they are and make sure the buyer is AWARE that a real difference exists and that it impacts the value of their asset - Nothing more/nothing less.

 

Informing the buyer is obviously not in itself a total solution to the problem of coin doctoring, but NOT informing them is definitely contributing to the problem.

 

The just of my posts has been based upon the notion that it benefits everyone involved to be as honest, forthcoming, instructional and aware of the impact that you have on the industry/hobby and the items that have the good fortune to pass through your hands. There are times when we should all re-assess the simple tasks that are a part of our daily life to see if they truly fit our objectives and value structure....

 

 

[SWNGC]

 

I think your arguments under 18 U.S.C. §471 are weak in that "counterfeits" have traditionally referred to coins that are not genuine in terms of manufacture. An altered coin that has been artificially toned isn't a "counterfeit" per se. Traditional counterfeiting laws have accepted this position. Even if you were able to convince a judge that that was an accepted terminology for alterations, the defendant would still prevail. If there is any ambiguity in a criminal statute, it is a widely accepted rule of statutory interpretation (the Rule of Lenity) that the statute is to be construed in the favor of the defendant.

 

Your arguments are much stronger under 18 U.S.C. §331; however, you have another problem. Statutes such as §331 are not strict liability crimes; that is, they require the common law element of mens rea. In other words, they are specific intent crimes. In order to successfully prosecute someone under this statute, you must prove that they accomplished the act and that they knowingly sold it with the intent to defraud the buyer. Proving intent is very difficult and absent a pattern that would establish this doctor as such, it would be difficult to prosecute. If the original poster has this conclusive evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt] and the seller refused to refund his money, then he should contact his federal district attorney about pursuing federal criminal charges. Even if the coin doctor wasn't convicted, the odds are that he or she would be forced to pay out thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. I know that this isn't much comfort for a buyer that is "out of luck", but it is comforting in general to see some justice ultimately result from a bad situation.

 

If anyone tries this, let me know how this works. I wonder if the same concept would work with artificial slabbers who clean/dip their coins prior to "slabbing" and then sell them on eBay to unwary buyers.

 

Agreed with respect to 18 U.S.C. §471, which is why I used the phrasing "would love to see", as in the absolute right "alignment of stars" situation it could establish some precedence for future use given that the intent is in fact to "reap monetary reward via the alteration of the tender in question", and fits within the definition set forth.

 

With respect to 18 U.S.C. §331, this is gravy in today's market, as the very same medium that has fueled their fever could quickly become their demise (e.g. Ebay). We've all seen the simple sleuthing work done by other members of the forum that points out the blatant buying of identifiable coins, which are doctored and immediately offered for sale as original or the same process with fakes. Intent can be established and the records will exist to prove a longstanding pattern for the biggest offenders. Just as google keeps every single word you type into their system, ebay, paypal, usps, fedex, ups and many other companies involved in these transactions keep amazing electronic records for countless years back. The beauty is that there now exists enough data to get "headline" type convictions for these criminals - consumers just need to do their part to report problems and convince their contact at the Federal District attorney's office, Fair Trade Commission or Secret Service to adopt their cause.

 

 

[SWNGC]

 

I'm pretty sure I understand the selling process. Not only do I have my own successful coin business, but I also do the marketing for county, city, & states insurance products, as well as have a Masters Degree in Marketing.

 

Perhaps this is why I am not a good teacher, but rather a doer. I actually understand concepts and can put the necessary ones into practice while not dredging up unnecessary concepts.

 

NO REPLY NECESSARY. You're one step from the Ignore feature.

 

So to get this straight, your response to support the claim that you understand the selling process is to offer that you own a successful coin business, do unspecified freelance marketing for unspecified entities for unspecified insurance products and have a degree in marketing?

 

While I believe all to be admirable accomplishments from which I'm sure you draw considerable pride, which of these statements lends credence to or has anything to do with your level of understanding of the "selling process"???

 

Also, How do you have the time to do the insurance marketing work when the coin business is "booming" like you state? Seems odd/contradictory?

 

Please tell me your not "slingin" fixed annuities and medicare supplement packages to old folks?

 

Perhaps this is why I am not a good teacher, but rather a doer. I actually understand concepts and can put the necessary ones into practice while not dredging up unnecessary concepts

 

There are a few good points to make here: That you recognize one of your faults, "I am not a good teacher", is only of value when action is taken to correct the fault.

Secondly, while it is admirable to be a "doer" and/or to "produce", one will reach a limit at which they can themselves "do" no more. To that point, you become self restricting and are your own constraint to success. (Sorry, theory of constraints isn't a marketing concept, I'll get back to your comfort zone) This is as far as many good men make it in life, and they reap the rewards commensurate with their hard work, but so often miss out on much greater opportunities as a result of the lack of necessary personal resources, time/energy, already expended. (opportunity cost should be more familiar - doing my part to keep it simple) (most lead happy lives, but look back at the end and regret what they could have accomplished knowing what they know now or had they not been otherwise encumbered in their endeavors) The key to overcoming this is to expand your knowledge base, embrace, employ and understand "new"/differing concepts and techniques (A concept to be differentiated (Ha) from an unsubstantiated attempt to "brand" (you just like that don't you) a concept as unnecessary without sound logical reasoning/justification, which is, by the way, effectively interpreted/perceived (Ha!) as a cop out and conveyance of ignorance on a subject - i.e. it sorta makes ya look bad). For those who wish to overcome this natural constraint, it becomes necessary to establish a mechanism (form of power) by which you may benefit from the efforts of others (Become a Leader). As you must know (given the MMKT and all), power is "derived" and may come from a myriad of sources, with the most effective and easily obtained form within this context being derived from Knowledge (Ah, "Expert Power" - Some coverage in MKT, but provided the term so you could wiki it). To that point, meerly possessing or claiming to possess the knowledge does not in itself become a source of power. The knowlege must be employed, much like your doer must do, to effectively harness the inherent potential contained within. To that point, those who posess "valuable" "legitimate" knowledge must be capable of effectively and efficiently conveying their points in an eloquent, coherent and structured fashion that hits home with (is adopted by) their audience and must have the confidence and understanding to converse/teach/lead and question the actions, beliefs, and motivations (Sorry, only partially a marketing concept - it's really hard to just keep it to within the narrow field of marketing, can't you go back and learn about the other B-school disciplines too, it really would help out...) of themselves and those who surround them.

 

As a result, if it is your intent to rely upon your "knowledge" as a source of power (this is, after all, what you were making a poor attempt to do), whether it be in leading, establishing or conveying "expert power" or just your initial tip-toe foray into public forum conversing, you would be much better served to first learn the skills necessary to effectively convey your concepts and "true" understanding (should it exist) of the topic under discussion and develop a skill that may assist you later in life when the time comes that circumstances dictate that you must transition from a doer to a leader of doers...

 

NO REPLY NECESSARY

 

Interpretation - (conveys weakness) I really want to have the last word, p.l.e.a.s.eeeeee

 

You're one step from the Ignore feature.

 

Interpretation - poorly construed attempt to create the perception that 1, some obscure form of power can be perceived to exist in or derived from the fact that anyone on the board can ignore anyone else and 2, that it would matter to me or anyone else if such action was realized...

Response - Well, I'm pretty sure it's already contained herein...

 

No hard feelings at all Greg, just responding to the material you provide and keeping it light/interesting...

 

 

 

[schultzmeister]

TACO BELL NAPKIN TIME

[coinman1794]

 

 

I must agree that the next step in the conversation, after deleting a dozen or so thread-hijacking posts , is what next to do with the dipped out trade

dollar. And, an album or napkin is a good starting point.

[SWNGC]

 

I must agree that the next step in the conversation, after deleting a dozen or so thread-hijacking posts , is what next to do with the dipped out trade

dollar. And, an album or napkin is a good starting point.

 

I vote for the Album - surprise!

 

As for the supposed "hijacking", The original poster introduced the topics of dipping, with his initial post and illustrative examples, artificial toning, with his "little liver of sulfur can't cure" comment and further legitimized the topic in addressing others' preceding and derogatory comments regarding the coin as well as with later assertions that "an owner of an item may do what they want with it" followed by two subsequent posts only to then relinquish his defensive position to Greg, who performed the inherited task miserably. To that extent, the original poster remained involved in the discourse and the topic remained centered on his initial coin and concepts introduced.

 

The coin, as stated by many other posters, is of the same basic quality now as before and further doctoring (which I do not believe to be the owners intent anyway), via addition of or removal of or processing of your choice is not going to further "improve" the physical state of the item.

 

As for the censorship of threads, let's leave that to that "other forum"

 

 

 

[cpm9ball]

 

I must agree that the next step in the conversation, after deleting a dozen or so thread-hijacking posts , is what next to do with the dipped out trade

dollar. And, an album or napkin is a good starting point.

 

I vote for the Album - surprise!

 

As for the supposed "hijacking", The original poster introduced the topics of dipping, with his initial post and illustrative examples, artificial toning, with his "little liver of sulfur can't cure" comment and further legitimized the topic in addressing others' preceding and derogatory comments regarding the coin as well as with later assertions that "an owner of an item may do what they want with it" followed by two subsequent posts only to then relinquish his defensive position to Greg, who performed the inherited task miserably. To that extent, the original poster remained involved in the discourse and the topic remained centered on his initial coin and concepts introduced.

 

The coin, as stated by many other posters, is of the same basic quality now as before and further doctoring (which I do not believe to be the owners intent anyway), via addition of or removal of or processing of your choice is not going to further "improve" the physical state of the item.

 

As for the censorship of threads, let's leave that to that "other forum"

 

 

 

Phew! What he said!

 

Chris

[19Lyds]

The golden rule of conservation treatment is never to do anything that can't be undone.

 

I'm gettin curious now.

 

Please give an example of some type of coin conservation that can be "undone"?

[SWNGC]

The golden rule of conservation treatment is never to do anything that can't be undone.

 

I'm gettin curious now.

 

Please give an example of some type of coin conservation that can be "undone"?

 

Ok, simple example... (Can involve the item or its environment)

 

Removing a coin from a harsh environment, say for example your windowsill, is conserving the coin - Obviously it could be returned to the windowsill, but the point is that the item remains unchanged.

 

Removing Taco Bell Sauce/Napkins from the vicinity of or surface of the coin would be an act of conservation - Obviously it may be returned to that condition, again, the contaminants were unoriginal, so ability to return them is not really a requirment, but you could.

 

Basically removing and foreign, unoriginal, or potentially damaging contaminant from the item or its surface or environment is conservation, as long as the method utilized does not further damage the item under conservation...

 

Is dipping in EZest conservation in the strictest sense? No, it removes a layer of silver from the outer surface of the coin (A layer which cannot be reasonably returned)

 

Is this sometimes better than leaving a more damaging active substance on the surface? - in Cases Sure, Although it may not always be the best available means of acheiving the objective.

 

Is soaking/Dipping a coin in an agent that is NON-reactive/damaging to that coin for the purpose of removing a contaminant conservation (e.g. Morgan Dollar with surface contaminant in pure Acetone or distilled water for that matter) Sure

 

Hope that helps...

[cpm9ball]

The golden rule of conservation treatment is never to do anything that can't be undone.

 

I'm gettin curious now.

 

Please give an example of some type of coin conservation that can be "undone"?

 

Put it on the railroad tracks and wait for the midnight freight to rumble past.

 

Chris

[coinman1794]

The golden rule of conservation treatment is never to do anything that can't be undone.

 

I'm gettin curious now.

 

Please give an example of some type of coin conservation that can be "undone"?

 

You are getting hung up on trade lingo. In real terms, that terminology simply means that the coin itself was not harmed, just the dirt and residue on the coin. No metal was disturbed during conservation, in other words. A coin can be made dirty again, but you can never un-scratch or un-dip a coin.

[gmarguli]

The golden rule of conservation treatment is never to do anything that can't be undone.

 

I'm gettin curious now.

 

Please give an example of some type of coin conservation that can be "undone"?

 

You are getting hung up on trade lingo. In real terms, that terminology simply means that the coin itself was not harmed, just the dirt and residue on the coin. No metal was disturbed during conservation, in other words. A coin can be made dirty again, but you can never un-scratch or un-dip a coin.

 

Dipping a coin just removes the dirt, residue, and oxidation. All can be replaced. Therefore, dipping follows the #1 rule of conservation.

[gbsten]

Dipping a coin just removes the dirt, residue, and oxidation. All can be replaced. Therefore, dipping follows the #1 rule of conservation.

 

Okay, so dipping is ok with you, that's all right. If done properly and not too many times it can serve a purpose. But to make a statement like this, which is well-documented to be incorrect, does seem a little myopic. Even one dip will change a coin, albeit microscopic. I think it's important to present that fact to new collectors, surely you agree?

[gmarguli]

Dipping a coin just removes the dirt, residue, and oxidation. All can be replaced. Therefore, dipping follows the #1 rule of conservation.

 

Okay, so dipping is ok with you, that's all right. If done properly and not too many times it can serve a purpose. But to make a statement like this, which is well-documented to be incorrect, does seem a little myopic. Even one dip will change a coin, albeit microscopic. I think it's important to present that fact to new collectors, surely you agree?

 

I'm not worried about the microscopic level. This is a coin we're talking about. If you can't see it with your own eyes or at worst a typical lower power magnifying glass, then it's not worth discussing.

[coinman1794]

Dipping a coin just removes the dirt, residue, and oxidation. All can be replaced. Therefore, dipping follows the #1 rule of conservation.

 

Okay, so dipping is ok with you, that's all right. If done properly and not too many times it can serve a purpose. But to make a statement like this, which is well-documented to be incorrect, does seem a little myopic. Even one dip will change a coin, albeit microscopic. I think it's important to present that fact to new collectors, surely you agree?

 

I'm not worried about the microscopic level. This is a coin we're talking about. If you can't see it with your own eyes or at worst a typical lower power magnifying glass, then it's not worth discussing.

 

Of course a light dip can go unnoticed, but after a few dips, the cumulative breakdown of the original mint luster will become apparent. Dipping strips metal off the surface, albeit metal that has been oxidized, but there is still a chemical change made to the coin, whether or not you can see it. In some cases, metal will start to electroplate back onto the coin if one is not careful when dipping.

 

Dip is often a market acceptable from of cleaning, but I cannot call it conservation.

[JIM F.]

And what would those opposed to any type of "coin conservation" suggest be done with these coins with original unmolested with patina?

 

 

 

[Mark T]

Use them as pocket change

[JIM F.]

Oh no, I accidentally dropped them in coin dip and they look nice and shiny. The future generations have been ROBBED of original patina coins. OH NO!

 

 

[coinman23885-migration]

Agreed with respect to 18 U.S.C. §471, which is why I used the phrasing "would love to see", as in the absolute right "alignment of stars" situation it could establish some precedence for future use given that the intent is in fact to "reap monetary reward via the alteration of the tender in question", and fits within the definition set forth.

 

With respect to 18 U.S.C. §331, this is gravy in today's market, as the very same medium that has fueled their fever could quickly become their demise (e.g. Ebay). We've all seen the simple sleuthing work done by other members of the forum that points out the blatant buying of identifiable coins, which are doctored and immediately offered for sale as original or the same process with fakes. Intent can be established and the records will exist to prove a longstanding pattern for the biggest offenders. Just as google keeps every single word you type into their system, ebay, paypal, usps, fedex, ups and many other companies involved in these transactions keep amazing electronic records for countless years back. The beauty is that there now exists enough data to get "headline" type convictions for these criminals - consumers just need to do their part to report problems and convince their contact at the Federal District attorney's office, Fair Trade Commission or Secret Service to adopt their cause.

 

 

I knew that it was possible if you could establish a trend/long lineage of doctored coins as has been done here in the past. The problem is getting a federal prosecutor who wants to touch the case. Even though I feel the issue is an important one, I can see some young, new prosecutor passing off the situation as not important or at least less important than other cases that will allow him or her to make a name for themselves (think the big stuff). Also, many federal prosecutor's are looking for judgeships or other lucrative promotions. They have been known in the past to turn down viable cases in an irrational fear of losing, especially if it concerns a subject matter that they don't understand adequately.

 

I would love to see an actual prosecution, if you or anyone else has any evidence of one that they know of either personally or from numismatic periodicals.

[coinman1794]

And what would those opposed to any type of "coin conservation" suggest be done with these coins with original unmolested with patina?

 

 

 

If this was directed at me: I dont recall saying that you should never dip a coin, only that dipping is not "conservation." I have approached this thread from a scientific standpoint. There are many other chemicals which could be used to dissolve surface contaminants without harming the metal, those methods do constitute "conservation."

 

By the way, "dip" doesn't work on copper-nickel; and those coin are corroded--no dip could save them, anyway

[coinman23885-migration]

And what would those opposed to any type of "coin conservation" suggest be done with these coins with original unmolested with patina?

 

 

 

I don't think anyone would collect those; thus I don't know if "conservation" would be the correct term. I'm not sure that I would even spend them in change - I'd shove them in a roll where no one else could see them and make a trip to the bank.

[JIM F.]

I know that.

As an experiment, I will 1) Neutralize the reaction and remove surface corrosion. 2) Evaluate the remaining damage. 3) Attempt to treat the damage.

 

I am a chemical engineer, and am treating this is simply an experiment.

 

Step 1 is in progress, and initial results are that the green surface corrosion has been removed but there is some heavy corrosion (appears rust) near the outside of the coin(s) (near the rims)....I figure this will take 2-3 days of experimentation and will post the final results.

 

Step 1 will go overnite.

 

 

[gbsten]

The surface will be etched from the corrosion and thus ruined. Of course, you could get a battery, some copper sulfate, and some silver and make a 3% silver-clad if you really want to experiment!

[SWNGC]

 

I knew that it was possible if you could establish a trend/long lineage of doctored coins as has been done here in the past. The problem is getting a federal prosecutor who wants to touch the case. Even though I feel the issue is an important one, I can see some young, new prosecutor passing off the situation as not important or at least less important than other cases that will allow him or her to make a name for themselves (think the big stuff). Also, many federal prosecutor's are looking for judgeships or other lucrative promotions. They have been known in the past to turn down viable cases in an irrational fear of losing, especially if it concerns a subject matter that they don't understand adequately.

 

I would love to see an actual prosecution, if you or anyone else has any evidence of one that they know of either personally or from numismatic periodicals.

 

You are correct in that finding someone to adopt the case may be a bit of a challange. As for existing case-law, I do not know of any off hand, but will have my guys look through lexis nexis, pacer, findlaw, etc during some downtime to see what may exist... Now I'm curious myself:)